Aha, skipping over some 250 odd responses, the response for moi:
I am a died in the wool fiscal conservate, social liberal that would typically be more than happy to vote for Reagan, Bush 1, hell even Nixon (he just fucked things up for himself rather than a nation), but there is no way that I will be voting for Bush come November.
Would Kerry make an absolute disaster if he had the same influence and power as Bush? Maybe. Who cares? I don’t. He’s a Democrat that the Republican congress can love to hate; they can get caught in pointless trivial bickering and generally avoid actually doing something which might screw anything up, notably start a pointless, expensive war as a prime result of insular group think, deception, arroance, and generally being a moron.
Well, that is true, because before the war most of us believed that what the White House was saying had a smidgin of truth. If Saddam had stonewalled on letting the inspectors in, I suspect there would have been a lot more support for the war than there was. But at the time of the war there were inspectors running around unconstrained throughout Iraq. The chances of him preparing any kind of a threat were slim to none.
If Bush had waited, two things could have happened. First, he’d throw the inspectors out, and make the case for war much easier to make. Second, he might have been deposed for losing control of his country to the UN. Either would have been a better result than what happened. Even if the inspectors had stayed for a long time, he would have been prevented from some of his worst sins, So, the factors that could neutralize him were already in place.
Yes, there is a very significant difference. If we are in a War against terrorists, attacking the direct supporters of terrorists can be justified in terms of that war. Attacking the Taliban, which got wide national and international support, is an example of this. Very few of those opposed to the Iraqi War were opposed to the war in Afghanistan. (Yes, there were a few lunatic fringers.) But if Saddam was not involved with terrorism, attacking him is not justified on those grounds. It’s like taking time out of the war on Japan to wipe out some tinpot South American dicatatorship. Sure he was evil, but there is no shortage of evil rulers in the world, many of whom seem to be our buddies. Why him? Because many in the new administration had been fixated on him for years, that is shown by the evidence. Claiming WMDs was an attempt to move the attack from just a plain old attack, not allowed by the UN Charter, even if the guy you’re attacking is evil, to self-defense, which is allowed. The other member states didn’t buy it, and they were right.
The thing that jshore points out, and it makes me real depressed, is that we asked who was lying, an evil dictator or the President of the United States. It turns out the dictator was telling the truth.
It was from his interview on Fresh Air, which I heard on the actual radio. I suspect he also says this in his book, but I haven’t read it. His statement was perfectly consistent with him still thinking that WMDs were being hidden in January. He was opposed to the invasion, if you remember. I doubt that he would issue a statement at the time which might reveal which sites were fingered by US intelligence, since that might have put operatives at risk. The quote was about his state of mind - I do not know if he wrote this down at the time.
I don’t know if Fresh Air transcripts are kept this long. However here is a link to Morning Edition where he says basically the same thing.
Well, I didn’t have as much faith in the inspectors as that, so I might have characterized it with a little less certainty. For instance Saddam could also have cooperated for a while and slowly meandered back to the situation where the inspectors did not have unfettered access. Also, I’m not sure that the inspectors really had the ability to control Iraqs activity just with unfettered access to facilities. Surely that would have made any WMD program harder, but not impossible.
Now, I’m certainly not saying that we had to go when we did. But I am also disapointed with the argument (made by others, not Voyager that I am aware of) that Bush pushed the time table to prevent the absence of WMDs from being discovered.
Well, that might be a little bit too far to stretch the analogy. If you imagine some tinpot dictator who supports the goals of Japan, perhaps on some pacific Island, then you might have a closer analogy. If you place the island somewhere in the pacific in close proximity to other tinpot dictators (and a few reluctant allies), then the analogy might be even closer. If you postulate that before the war, this dictator had attacke one of our allies, add in the fact that we had a bruised cease fire with them for the last 12 years (with the attendant shooting at American soldiers), then you might have a deal.
Well, I hope I have suggested other reasons a little les conspiracy sounding by the analogy mangling above.
Some didn’t buy it others did. Some of those who “didn’t buy it” may have had other motives for disbelieving.
Well, actually, it depends on who he was talking to. What he said to the world with a wink and a nod was one thing (it turned out to be right). What he said to his commanders was another (it turned out to be a lie). We heard his public declarations and did not believe him. We heard some of his private declarations and believed them. Certainly not an unreasonable position to take no?
Oh, I forgot to mention, that the policy of the United States had been that regime change was necessary in Iraq. So, even cooperation with the inspectors was not enough at some point. Saddam had to leave.
Yes, pervert it was not that it is necessary to put my name in bold type.
Anyways just recalled: Did not Colin Powell make a public statement, that if SH were to disarm the US would have no problem with him continuing to govern. It’s being mentioned and linked many times on this board, I believe.
Sorry, I consider it polite to identify user names that way to differenciate them for other words, especially since user names are not capitalized unless they are. You know, like the board does in quotes. No offence meant.
Can you give me some terms that I could search for to locate such a thing?
In a vacuum it is not. In terms of resolving a conflict between the United States and another country, United States policy matters a great deal. As would the policies of that other country.
I was not trying to suggest that United States policy is some sort of world law. I was merely trying to add an addendum to the post directly above the one you responded to. Namely that in addition to the US’s objections to Saddam’s non cooperation with the inspectors, they also wanted him removed. I was only trying to add another reason why the access granted to inspectors in early 2003 might not been enough to avoid war.
It is considered polite convention on this board to always bold poster names, as you’ll note in virtually every post above. I’m sure pervert didn’t intend any disrespect.
I wrote up a semi-lengthy post laying out just who does and who doesn’t qualify as an Islamic militant and why ( IMHO obviously - teaser: SH, no - Hamas, yes ), but I lost it and now I don’t feel like re-creating it. You’ll just have to suffer along in your partisan catfight without the dubious benefit of my input ;).
I’m sorry to hear that. I have enjoyed every one of your posts that I have read. Can I offer to buy you a beer to recreate it? What can I tempt you with?
Meanwhile, let me ask you , how much do think an anti - zionist agenda should count when making such a determination.
Bush is president. He should have sent enough troops in the first place, and yes, people in the military did ask for it. Instead, he allowed Rumsfeld to plan the attack with an under-manned force. I haven’t heard of any promise from Bush to send more troops, but if he’s making such a promise just months before the election, after doing nothing this whole time, I’m pretty skeptical. There’s a big difference between the administration saying they sent enough troops, and actualy having done it. I don’t know where you get your news, but the news that I follow has made it very clear that Rumsfeld went against the advice of military commanders and went with an overly optimistic scenario as to how the war would go down. Some lame eleventh-hour “promise” to do better just isn’t convincing.
You are misreading Kerry’s statement. He says “we are going to need more forces”. That’s not ambiguous. He doesn’t say “the same number as we have now”, or “the same number that Bush promised”. He says “more”. More means more than Bush is using. He also says “the commanders have requested it.” He doesn’t say “I will send only the number the commanders have requested, which is the same as Bush is doing.” That seems to be what YOU think he’s saying, but he’s not saying that. Military commanders, the people who actually have the experience to know what they need, wanted more troops, but Bush didn’t provide them. Kerry says he will. There’s no need for confusion.
And I pointed out that Kerry HAS suggested exactly the things you claim he hasn’t. But then your baffling response was to play some sort of semantic game with his words.
Not in so many words, but what you seem to expect from Kerry may as well be magic. I’m sorry, but your bizarre contention that Kerry’s plan has to “match the rhetoric” is just nonsensical. Every specific example you have given has turned out to be a thing that already IS a part of Kerry’s platform. That just leaves us with this vague “match the rhetoric” idea, which is utterly meaningless.
No, it is not. But since you had to ask, I will try and explain.
I was thinking (with my fingers) of asking Tamerlane, who I consider to be something of an expert on Middle East issues based on posts of his that I have read, a question. I was thinking of asking something like “I seem to notice that many Islamic militants also have a strong component of anti zionism. Is there any sort of link, or is it a coincidence.” I thought about the question and decided that it was patently silly. There are certainly Islamic militants who are not very anti zionist (the groups in Indonesia come to mind) at least in their activities. And there are certainly groups who are anti zionist who are not Islamit militants.
I was not trying to suggest that Militant groups are necessarily racially prejudiced. I was not trying to suggest anything at all. I really was only contemplating a question of opportunity to ask of someone I think is much more knowledgeable about Middle East issues than I am.
I had the paragraph highlighted and was about to delete it when I hit the submit button by mistake.
In case there is any doubt at all left in anyone’s mind, I would like to now publicly disavow support for whatever ideas you think that pargraph implies. I would like to appologize for any offence it may have caused you. And I would like to ask that you please ignore it from now on. Please treat it like a typo. You must be used to seeing them in my posts.
Every time Rumsfeld talks about troop levels, he reiterates that any time troops are asked for by commanders on the ground, they will be provided. Its what he has said all along.
Ok, but now who is postulating a time machine. Ok, commanders asked for more troops in the past (the only article I’ve seen on this implies that some planners thought they needed more troops before the invasion). I have not seen evidence that commanders are asking for more troops now. Have you seen evidence that commanders are asking in the present tense for more troops? Or are you suggesting that Kerry’s policy is that he will provide troop numbers based on old requests despite the current requests? I’m sure that’s not what you mean.
Well, no, I think the only thing which came close was this one thing. I’m sure that when I said he should advocate pulling out of Iraq you did not offer evidence that he said that.
Really? So in general if a candidate rails against the evils of high government spending but then proposes to increase government spending that’s ok with you?
Well, its late and I may have missed something, but the only thing we have discussed which come close is the troop strength issue.
Really? You’re sure you don’t understand the idea that a candidates proposals should match his rhetoric?
Now to clarify, I did mention in another post that I may have conflated the rhetoric of other democrats (Kennedy, for example) and Kerry’s own. To the extent to which that is leading to confusion, I appologize.
But is it really so odd a notion that a candidates policy proposals should match his rhetoric? I’m willing to grant the Kerry himself has not done this to the degree I thought. But is it really an irrational area of inquiry?
Thank you. I did use those terms (except disarm) as well as others and did not find that article. Thanks.
But I’m not sure what that article proves. It suggests that Saddam could stay in power if he came up with ways to ensure “with consequences for failure to perform” that his regime had changed its policies, that is in effect it was a new regime, he could stay in power. It certainly does not seem to indicate that Powell proposed, nor that the Administration supported, leaving Saddam’s regime in power as is. What am I missing?
I apologize. I missed when you said that. I’m utterly baffled as to why you think Kerry ought to advocate pulling out of Iraq, but I will concede that you are correct in saying that Kerry never advocated such a thing. Why you would want him to is beyond me. (Or is this just another fly for me to swat at?)
